Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:14:28 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c4e0680017edd97de27fe18c8372b36f123e5cb7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
 <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:14:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3502043"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3331
Lines: 32

On 3/8/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
>>> simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
>>> recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
>>> reach their own final state and terminate normally.
>>
>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination analyzer, 
>> simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification that is 
>> the halting function:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>>
>> And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification
> 
> *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE*
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
> It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must
> report on behavior other than the above behavior.
> 

But HHH isn't the HHH that does an correct emulation, so DD isn't the DD 
that calls such an HHH, and thus HHH is answering about the wrong input.

Of course, since you admit that you are lying about working in the basic 
system implied, who know what you actually mean, except that it isn't 
the actual Halting Problem.